V ^ ^ 






















V 



> ^ 



^°* a ^ **•«»•* 





£ -.. 






***« 



.;• «?' v *+ % V W\ v * 



























.^ » v «!Si©i'. >. ^ * 













'°^% V 






^ ♦* % '-jm; J"\ -WW: j>\ ; .lsf. : 
/ ••». V c°* .cat. ** +* ..j&,X -" j 



- 





tf 






> ^ 

0° + 






* ^ ^ . % y<S^te* ^ A* ♦!< 



%^ 






■A 9 ' 









,-iq. 



» ^ v 






4/ * 



SPEECH 



HON. DANIEL WEBSTER 



AT THE 



NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, 



IN WORCESTER, Oct. 12, 1832. 



BOSTON: 

STIMPSON & CLAPP, 72 WASHINGTON STREET. 



1832 






JJ. E. I^tiufelej $c Co., ^fruiters, 

NO. 14, WATER STBEET. 



MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH. 



Mr. President, — I offer no apology for addressing the 
meeting. Holding, by the favor of the people of this Com- 
monwealth, an important public situation, I deem it no less 
than a part of my duty, at this interesting moment, to make 
my own opinions on the state of public affairs known ; and, 
however I may have performed other duties, this, at least, it 
is my purpose, on the present occasion, fully to discharge. 
Not intending to comment, at length, on all the subjects which 
now attract public attention, nor to discuss any thing, in de- 
tail, I will, nevertheless, before an assembly so large and re- 
spectable as the present, and through them to the whole people 
of the State, lay open, without reserve, my own sentiments, 
hopes, and fears, respecting the state, and the fate, of our com- 
mon country. 

The Resolutions which have been read from the Chair ex- 
press the opinion that the public good requires an effectual 
change, in the administration of the General Government, 
both of measures, and of men. In this opinion I heartily 
concur. 

Mr. President, — there is no citizen of the State, who, in prin- 
ciple and by habitual sentiment, is less disposed than myself 
to general opposition to Government, or less desirous of fre- 
quent changes in its administration. I entertain this feeling 
strongly, and at all times, towards the Government of the 
United States ; because I have ever regarded the Federal 
Constitution as a frame of Government so peculiar, and so 
delicate in its relations to the State Government, that it might 
be in danger of overthrow, as well from an indiscriminate and 
wanton opposition, as from a weak or a wicked administra- 
tion. But a case may arise, in which the Government is 
no longer safe in the hands to which it has been entrusted. 
It may come to be a question, not so much in what partial- 



lar manner, or according to what, particular political opinions, 
the Government shall be administered, as whether the Con- 
stitution itself shall be preserved and maintained. Now, sir, 
in my judgment, just such a case, and just such a question, 
are at this moment before the American People. Entertain- 
ing this sentiment, and thoroughly and entirely convinced of its 
truth, I wish, as far as my humble power extends, to awaken 
the People to a more earnest attention to their public concerns. 
With the People, and the People alone, lies any remedy for 
the past, and any security for the future. No delegated power 
is equal to the exigency of the present crisis. No public ser- 
vants, however able or faithful, have power to check, or to 
stop the fearful tendency of things. It is a case for sovereign 
interposition. The rescue, if it come at all, must come from 
that power, which no other power on earth can resist. I 
earnestly wish, therefore, unimportant as my own opinions 
may be, and entitled, as 1 know they are, to no considerable 
regard, yet, since they are honest and sincere, and since they 
respect nothing less than dangers which appear to me to 
threaten the Government and Constitution of the country, 1 
fervently wish, that I could now make them known, not only 
to this meeting, and to this State, but to every man in the 
Union. I take the hazard of the reputation of an alarmist ; 
I cheerfully submit to the imputation of over-excited appre- 
hension ; I discard all fear of the cry of false prophecy, and I 
declare, that, in my judgment, not only the great interests of 
the country, but the Constitution itself is in imminent peril, 
and that nothing can save, either the one or the other, but 
that voice, which has authority to say, to the evils of misrule 
and misgovernment, Hitherto shall ye come, but no farther. 

It is true, sir, that it is the natural effect of a good consti- 
tution to protect the People. But who shall protect the Con- 
stitution ? Who shall guard the guardian ? What arm but 
the mighty arm of the People itself, is able, in a popular 
government, to uphold public institutions ? The Constitution 
itself is but the creature of the public will, and in every crisis 
which threatens it, it must owe its security to the same power 
to which it owes its origin. 

The appeal, therefore, is to the People. Not to party, nor to 
paitizans ; not to- professed politicians ; not to those who have 
an interest in office and place, greater than their stake in the 
country ; but to the People, and the whole People ; to those, 



■who, in regard to political affairs, have no wish but for a good 
government, and who have the power to accomplish their own 
wishes. 

Mr. President, — are the principles and leading measures of 
the Administration hostile to the great interests of the country? 

Are they dangerous to the Constitution, and to the Union 
of the States ? 

Is there any prospect of a beneficial change of principles 
and measures, without a change of men ? 

Is there reasonable ground to hope for such a change of 
men ? 

On these several questions, I desire to state my own convic- 
tions, fully, though as briefly as possible. 

As government is intended to be a practical institution, if 
it be wisely formed, the first and most natural (est cf its ad- 
ministration is the effect produced by it. Let us look, then, to 
the actual state of our affairs. Is it such as should follow 
a good administration of a good Constitution? 

Sir, we see one State openly threatening to arrest the exe- 
cution of the revenue laws of the Union, by acts of her own. 
This proceeding is threatened, not by irresponsible persons, 
but by those who fill her chief places of power and trust. 

In another State, free citizens of the country are imprisoned, 
and held in prison, in defiance of a judgment of the Supreme 
Court, pronounced for their deliverance. Immured in a dun- 
geon, marked and patched as subjects of penitentiary punish- 
ment, these free citizens pass their days in counting the slow 
revolving hours of their miserable captivity, and their nights 
in feverish delusive dreams of their own homes and their own 
families ; while the Constitution stands, adjudged to be viola- 
ted, a law of Congress is effectually repealed by the act of a 
State, and a judgment of deliverance, by the Supreme Court, 
is set at nought and contemned. 

Treaties, importing the most solemn and sacred obligations, 
are denied to have binding force. 

A feeling, that there is great insecurity for property, and the 
stability of the means of living, extensively prevails. 

The whole subject of the Tariff, acted on for the moment, 
is, at the same moment, declared, not to be at rest, but liable 
to be again moved, and with greater effect, just so soon as 
power for that purpose shall be obtained. 

The currency of the country, hitherto safe, sound, and uni- 



o 

versally satisfactory, is threatened with a violent change, and 
an embarrassment in pecuniary affairs, equally distressing and 
unnecessary, hangs over all the trading and active classes of 
society. 

A long-used and long-approved Legislative Instrument for 
the collection of revenue, well secured against abuse, and 
always responsible to Congress and to the laws, is denied 
further existence ; and its place is proposed to be supplied by 
a new branch of the Executive Department, with a money 
power, controlled and conducted solely by Executive agency. 

The power of the Yeto is exercised, not as an extraordi- 
nary, but as an ordinary power ; as a common mode of de- 
feating Acts of Congress not acceptable to the Executive. 
We hear, one day, that the President needs the advice of no 
Cabinet ; that a few Secretaries, or Clerks, are enough for 
him. The next, we are informed, that the Supreme Court 
is but an obstacle to the popular will, and the whole judicial 
department but an incumbrance to Government. And while, 
on one side, the judicial power is thus derided and denounced, 
on the other arises the cry, " cut down the Senate " ; and 
over the whole, at the same time, prevails the loud avowal, 
shouted with all the lungs of conscious party strength, and 
party triumph, that the spoils of the enemy belong to the vic- 
tors. This condition of things, sir, this general and obvious 
aspect of affairs, is the result of three years' administration, 
such as the country has experienced. 

But not resting on this general view of results, let me in- 
quire what the principles and policy of the Administration 
are, on the leading interests of the country, subordinate to the 
Constitution itself. And first, w T hat are its principles, and 
what its policy, respecting the Tariff? Is this great question 
settled, or unsettled ? And is the present Administration for, 
or against, the Tariff? 

Sir, the question is wholly unsettled, and the principles of 
the Administration, according to its most recent avowal of those 
principles, is adverse to the protecting policy, decidedly hostile 
to the whole system, root and branch ; and this on permanent 
and alleged constitutional grounds. 

In the first place, nothing has been done to settle the Tariff 
question. The Anti-Tariff gentlemen who voted for the late 
law have, none of them, said they would adhere to it. On 
the contrary, they supported it, because, as far as it went, it 



was reduction, and that was what they wished ; and if they 
obtained this degree of reduction now, it would be easier to 
obtain a greater degree hereafter ; and they frankly declared 
that their intent and purpose was to insist on reduction, and 
to pursue reduction, unremittingly, till all duties on imports 
were brought down to one general and equal "per centage, and 
that regulated by the mere wants of the revenue ; or that if 
different rates of duty should remain on different articles, 
still, that the whole should be laid for revenue, and revenue 
only ; and that they would, to the utmost of their power, 
push this course of policy, till Protection, by duties, as a spe- 
cial object of National policy, should be abandoned, altogether, 
in the National Councils. It is a delusion, therefore, sir, to 
imagine that the present Tariff stands, safely, on conceded 
ground. It covers not an inch, that has not been fought for, 
and must not be again fought for. It stands, while its friends 
can protect it, and not an hour longer. 

In the next place, in the compend of Executive opinions 
contained in the Veto Message, the whole principle of the 
protecting policy is plainly and pointedly denounced. 

Having gone through its argument against the Bank 
Charter, as it now exists, and as it has existed either under 
the present or a former law for near forty years, and having 
added to the well-doubted logic of that argument the still more 
doubtful aid of a large array of opprobrious epithets, the Mes- 
sage, in unveiled allusion to the protecting policy of the coun- 
try, holds this language, — 

" Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters, and 
most of the dangers which impend over our Union, have sprung 
from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government 
by our National legislation, and the adoption of such principles 
as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not 
been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have 
besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By at- 
tempting to gratify their desires, we have, in the results of our 
legislation, arrayed section against section, interest against in- 
terest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which 
threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to 
pause in our career, to review our principles, and, if possible, re- 
vive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which dis- 
tinguished the sages of the revolution, and the fathers of our 
Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under 
improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to 



8 

be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of mono- 
polies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our 
Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the 
many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our 
code of laws and system of political economy." 

Here, then, we have the whole creed. Our National Legis- 
lature has abandoned the legitimate objects of Government. 
It has adopted such principles as are embodied in the Bank 
Charter, and these principles are elsewhere called objectionable, 
odious, and unconstitutional. And all this has been done, be- 
cause rich men have besought the Government to render them 
richer by acts of Congress. It is time to pause in our career. 
It is time to review these principles. And, if we cannot, at 
once, make our Government what it ought to be, we 
can, at least, take a stand against new grants of power and 
privilege. 

The plain meaning of all this, is, that our protecting laws 
are founded in an abandonment of the legitimate objects of 
government ; that this is the great source of our difficulties ; 
that it is time to stop our career, to review the principles of 
these laws, and, as soon as we can, make our Government 

WHAT IT OUGHT TO BE. 

No one can question, Mr. President, that these paragraphs, 
from the last official publication of the President, show, that 
in his opinion, the Tariff, as a system designed for pro- 
tection, is not only impolitic but unconstitutional also. 
They are quite incapable of any other version or interpretation. 
They defy all explanation, and all glosses. 

Sir, however we may differ from the principles or the policy 
of the Administration, it would, nevertheless, somewhat satisfy 
our pride of country, if we could ascribe to it the character of 
consistency. It would be grateful if we could contemplate the 
President of the United States as an identical idea. But even 
this secondary pleasure is denied to us. In looking to the 
published records of Executive opinions, sentiments favorable 
to protection, and sentiments against protection, either come 
confusedly before us, at the same moment, or else follow each 
other in rapid succession, like the shadows of a phantas- 
magoria. 

Having read an extract from the Veto Message, containing 
the statement of present opinions, allow me to read another 
extract from the Annual Message of 1830. It will be per- 



9 

ceived, that in that Message, both the clear constitutionality 
of the Tariff laws, and their indispensable policy are main- 
tained in the fullest and strongest manner. The argument, 
on the constitutional point, is stated with more than common 
ability ; and the policy of the laws is affirmed, in terms im- 
porting the deepest and most settled conviction. We hear in 
this Message nothing of improvident legislation ; nothing of 
the abandonment of the legitimate objects of government; 
nothing of the necessity of pausing in our career, and review- 
ing our principles ; nothing of the necessity of changing our 
Government, till it shall be made what it ought to be : — 
But let the Message speak for itself. 

" The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged 
to the several States. The right to adjust those duties with a 
view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry is 
so completely incidental to that power, that it is difficult to 
suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States 
have delegated their whole authority over imports to the Gene- 
ral Government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very 
inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws. 
This authority having thus. entirely passed from the States, the 
right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in 
them ; and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the General 
Government, it must be extinct. Our political system would 
thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to 
foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and 
destructive policy which might he adopted by foreign nations. 
This surely cannot be the case : this indispensable power, thus 
surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the au- 
thority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress. 

" In this conclusion, I am confirmed as well by the opinions 
of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, 
who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right 
under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, 
the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general un- 
derstanding of the people. 

" I am well aware that this is a subject of so much delicacy, on 
account of the extended interests it involves, as to require that 
it should be touched with the utmost caution ; and that, while 
an abandonment of the policy in which it originated — a policy 
coeval with our Government, pursued through successive admin- 
istrations, is neither to be expected or desired, the people have a 
right to demand, and have demanded, that it be so modified as to 
correct abuses and obviate injustice." 
2 



10 

Mr. President, — no one needs to point out inconsistencies, 
plain and striking like these. The Message of 1830 is a well 
written paper ; it proceeded, probably, from the Cabinet proper. 
Whence the Veto Message of 1832, proceeded, I know not ; 
perhaps from the Cabinet improper. 

But, sir, there is an important record of an earlier date than 
1830. If, as the President avers, we have been guilty of im- 
provident legislation, what act of Congress is the most strik- 
ing instance of that improvidence ? — Certainly, it is the act 
of 1824. ^The principle of protection, repeatedly recognized 
before that time, was, by that act carried to a new and great 
extent ; so new, and so great, that the act was considered as 
the foundation of the system. That law it was, which con- 
ferred on the distinguished citizen, whose nomination for Pres- 
ident this meeting has received with so much enthusiasm, 
the appellation of " Author of the American System." Ac- 
cordingly, the act of 1824 has been the particular object of 
attack, in all the warfare waged against the protective policy. 
If Congress ever abandoned legitimate objects of legislation, 
in favor of protection, it did it by that law. If any laws, now 
on the statute book, or which ever, were there, show, by their 
character, as laws of protection, that our Government is not 
what it ought to be, and that it ought to be altered, and, in 
the language of the Veto Message, made what it ought to 
be, the law of 1824 is the very law, which more than any, 
and more than all others, shows that. And yet, sir, the 
President of the United States, then a Senator in Congress, 
voted for that law ! And, though 1 have not recurred to the 
journal, my recollection is, that as to some of its provisions, 
his support was essential to their success. It will be found, I 
think, that some of its enactments, and those now most loud- 
ly complained of, would have failed, but for his own personal 
support of them, by his own vote. 

After jail this, it might have been hoped, that there would 
be, in 1832, some tolerance of opinion toward those, who 
cannot think, that improvidence, abandonment qf all the 
legitimate objects of legislation, a desire to gratify the rich, 
who have besought Congress to make them still richer, and 
the adoption of principles, unequal, oppressive, and odious, are 
the true characteristics to be ascribed to the system of pro- 
tection. 

But, sir, it is but a small part of my object to show incon- 



11 

sistencies in Executive opinions. My main purpose is differ- 
ent, and tends to more practical ends. It is, to call the atten- 
tion of the meeting, and of the People, to the principles; avow- 
ed in the late Message, as being the President's present opin- 
ions, and proofs of his present purposes, and to the conse- 
quences, if they shall be maintained by the country. These 
principles are there expressed, in language which needs no 
commentary. They go, with a point blank aim, against the 
fundamental stone of the Protecting System ; that is to say, 
against the constitutional power of Congress to establish and 
maintain it, in whole or in part. The question, therefore, of 
the Tariff — the ' question of every Tariff — the question be- 
tween maintaining our agricultural and manufacturing interests 
where they now are, and breaking up the entire system, and 
erasing every vestige of it from the Statute Book, is a question 
materially to be affected by the pending election. 

The President has exercised his negative power, on the 
law for continuing the Bank Charter. Here, too, he denies 
both the constitutionality and the policy of an existing law of 
Congress. It is true, that the law, or a similar one, has been 
in operation near forty years. Previous Presidents and pre- 
vious Congresses have, all along, sanctioned and upheld it. 
The highest Courts, and, indeed, all the Courts, have pro- 
nounced it constitutional. A majority of the people, greater 
than exists on almost any other question, agrees with all the 
Presidents, all the Congresses, and all the Courts of law. Yet, 
against all this weight of authority, the President puts forth 
his own individual opinion, and has negatived the Bill for con- 
tinuing the law. Which of the members of his administra- 
tion, or whether either of them, concurs in his sentiments, we 
know not. Some of them, we know, have recently advanced 
precisely the opposite opinions, and in the strongest- manner 
recommended to Congress the continuation of the Bank Char- 
ter. Having, himself, urgently and repeatedly called the at 
tention of Congress to the subject, and his Secretary of the 
Treasury, who, and all the other Secretaries, as the Presi- 
dent's friends say, are but so many pens in his hand, having, 
at the very session, insisted, in his communication to Congress, 
both on the constitutionality and necessity of the Bank, the 
President, nevertheless, saw fit to negative the Bill, passed, as 
it had been ; by strong majorities in both Houses, and passed, 
without doubt or question, in compliance with the wishes of a 
vast majority of the American People, 



12 

The question respecting the constitutional power of Con- 
gress to establish a Bank, I shall not here discuss. On that, 
as well as on the general expediency of renewing the Charter, 
my sentiments have been elsewhere expressed. They are 
before the public ; and the experience of every day confirms 
me in their truth. All that has been said of the embarrass- 
ment and distress, which will be felt from discontinuing the 
Bank, falls far short of an adequate representation. What 
was prophecy only two months ago, is already history. 

In this part of the country, indeed, we experience this dis- 
tress and embarrassment only in a mitigated degree. The 
loans of the Bank are not so highly important, or at least not 
so absolutely necessary, to the present operations of our com- 
merce ; yet we ourselves have a deep interest in the subject, as 
it is connected with the general currency of the country, and 
with the cheapness and facility of exchange. 

The country, generally speaking, was well satisfied with 
the Bank. Why not let it alone ? No evil had been felt 
from it in thirty-six years. Why conjure up a troop of fan- 
cied mischiefs, as a pretence to put it down ? The Message 
struggles to excite prejudices, from the circumstance that for- 
eigners are stockholders, and on this ground it raises a loud 
cry against a monied aristocracy. Can any thing, sir, be con- 
ceived, more inconsistent than this? Any thing more remote 
from sound policy, and good statesmanship ? In the United 
States, the rate of interest is high, compared with the rates 
abroad. In Holland and England, the actual value of money, 
is no more than three, or perhaps three and a half, per cent. 
In our Atlantic States it is as high as five or six, taking the 
whole length of the sea-board ; in the North-western States, 
it is eight or ten, and in the South-western ten or twelve. If 
the introduction, then, of foreign capital be discountenanced 
and discouraged, the American money lender may fix his own 
rate, any where from five to twelve per cent, per annum. On 
the other hand, if the introduction of foreign capital be coun- 
tenanced, and encouraged, its effect is to keep down the rate of 
interest, and to bring the value of money »n the United States, 
so much the nearer to its value in older and richer countries. 
Every dollar brought from abroad, and put into the mass of ac- 
tive capital at home, by so much diminishes the rate of inter- 
est ; and by so much, therefore, benefits all the active and 
trading classes of society, at the expense of the American cap- 



13 

italist. Yet the President's invention, for such it deserves to 
be called, — that which js to secure us against the possibility of 
being oppressed by a inonied aristocracy, is to shut the door and 
bar it safely against all introduction of foreign capital ! 

Mr. President, — what is it, that has made England a sort of 
general banker for the civilized world? Why is it, that capi- 
tal, from all quarters of the globe, accumulates at the centre 
of her empire, and is thence again distributed ? Doubtless, 
sir, it is because she invites it, and solicits it. She sees the 
advantage of this. She manifests no weak or pretended 
jealousy of foreign influence, from the freest intercourse with 
the commercial world ; and no British minister ever yet did 
a thing so rash, so inconsiderate, so startling, as to exhibit a 
groundless feeling of jealousy towards the introduction on em- 
ployment of foreign capital. 

Sir, of all the classes of society, the larger stockholders of 
the Bank are among those least likely to suffer from its dis- 
continuance. There are, indeed, on the list of stockholders, 
many charitable institutions, many widows and orphans, hold- 
ing small amounts. To these and other proprietors of a like 
character, the breaking up of the Bank will, no doubt, be seri- 
ously inconvenient. But the capitalist, he who has invested 
money in the Bank, merely for the sake of the security, and 
the interest, has nothing to fear. The refusal to renew the 
charter will, it is true, diminish the value of the stock ; but 
then, the same refusal will create a scarcity for money ; and 
this, in time, will reduce the price of all other stocks ; so that 
the stockholders in the Bank, receiving on its dissolution tlijcir 
portion respectively of its capital, will have opportunities of new 
and cheap investment. 

The truth is, sir, the great loss, the sore embarrassment, the 
severe distress, arising from this Veto, will fall on the public, and 
especially on the more active and industrious portion of the public. 
It will inevitably create a scarcity for mono)- ; in the "Western 
States it will most materially depress the value of property ; it will 
greatly enhance, everywhere, the price of domestic exchange; 
it threatens, every where, fluctuations of the currency ; and it 
drives all our well-settled and safe operations of revenue and 
finance out of their accustomed channels. And all this, on 
the pretended ground of a constitutional scruple, which no 
respect for the opinion of others, no deference to legislative 
precedent, no decent regard to judicial decision, no homage to 



14 

public opinion, expressed and maintained for forty years, have 
power to overcome. An idle apprehension of danger is set up 
against the experience of almost half a century ; loose and 
flimsy theories are asserted, against facts of general notoriety ; 
and arguments are urged against continuing the charter, so 
superficial and frivolous, and yet so evidently addressed to 
those of the community who have never had occasion to be 
conversant with subjects of this sort, that an intelligent read- 
er, who wishes to avoid imputing obliquity of motive, is oblig- 
ed to content himself with ascribing to the origin of the 
Message — whatever and wherever that origin may have been 
— no very distinguished share of the endowments of in- 
tellect. 

Mr. President, — as early as December, 1829, the President 
called the attention of Congress to the subject of the Bank, 
in the most earnest manner. Look to his Annual Message of 
that date. You will find that he then felt constrained, by an 
irresistible sense of duty to the various interests concerned, not 
to delay, beyond that moment, his urgent invitation to Con- 
gress to take up the subject. He brought forward the same 
topic again, in all his subsequent annual messages ; yet, when 
Congress did act upon it, and on the fourth of July, eighteen 
hundred and thirty-two, did send him a bill, he re- 
turned it with his objections, and among these objections, he 
not only complained that the Executive was not consulted on 
the propriety of present action, but affirmed also, in so many 
words, that present action was deemed premature by 
the Executive Department. 

Let me ask, Mr. President, if it be possible that the same 
President, the same Chief Magistrate, the same mind, could 
have composed these two Messages l Certainly they much 
more resemble the production of two minds, holding, on this 
point, precisely opposite opinions. The Message of December, 
1829, asserts that the time had then come for Congress to con- 
sider the Bank subject ; the Message of 1832 declares, that, 
even then, the action of Congress on the same subject was 
premature ; and both these Messages were sent to Congress 
by the President of the United States. Sir, 1 leave these two 
Messages to be compared, and considered, by the people of the 
United States. 

Mr. President, — I will here take notice of but one other sug- 
gestion of the President, relative to the time and manner of 



15 

passing the late bill. A decent respect for the Legislature of 
the country has hitherto been observed by all who have had 
occasion to hold official intercourse with it, and especially by 
all other branches of the Government. The purity of the 
motives of Congress, in regard to any measure, has never 
been assailed, from any respectable quarter. But in (lie Veto 
Message there is one expression, which, as it seems to me, no 
American can read without some feeling. There is an ex- 
pression, evidently not casual or accidental, but inserted with 
design, and composed with care, which does carry a direct 
imputation of the possibility of the effect of private interest 
and private influence, on the deliberations of the two Houses 
of Congress. I quote the passage, and shall leave it, without 
a single remark : " Whatever interest or influence, whether 
public or private, has given birth to this act, it cannot be found 
either in the wishes or necessities of the Executive Depart- 
ment, by which present action is deemed premature." 

Among the great interests of the country, Mr. President, 
there is one, which appears to me not to have attracted, from 
the people of this Commonwealth, a degree of attention, alto 
gether equal to its magnitude. 

I mean the Public Lands. If we run our eye over the map 
of the country, and view the region?, almost boundless, which 
now constitute the public domain, and over which an active 
population is rapidly spreading itself, and if we recollect the 
amount of annual revenue derived from this source, we shall 
hardly fail to be convinced that few branches of national in- 
terest are of more extensive and lasting importance. So large 
a territory, belonging to the public, forms a subject of national 
concern of a very delicate nature, especially in popular gov- 
ernments. We know, in the history of other countries, with 
what views designing men have granted the public lands. 

Either in the form of gifts and largesses, or in that of re- 
duction of prices, to amounts merely nominal, or as compensa- 
tion for services, real or imagined, the public domain, in other 
countries and other times, lias not only been diverted from its 
just use and destination, but has been the occasion also of in- 
troducing into the Slate, and into the public councils, no small 
portion, both of distraction and corruption. Happily, our own 
system of administering this groat interest has hitherto been 
both safe and successful. Nothing under the government has 
been better devised than our land system; and nothing, thus 



16 

far, more beneficially conducted. But the time seems to have 
arrived, in the progress of our growth and prosperity, when it 
has become necessary to reflect, not on any new mode of sale, 
for that can hardly be improved, but on some disposition of 
the proceeds, such as shall be just and equal to the whole 
country, and shall insure also a constant and vigilant attention 
to this" delicate and important subject from the people of all 
the States. It is not to be denied or disguised, that sentiments 
have recently sprung up, in some places, of a very extraor- 
dinary character, respecting the ownership, the just proprietary 
interest, in these lands. The lands are well known to have 
been obtained by the United States, either by grants from in- 
dividual States, or by treaties with foreign powers. In both 
cases, and in all cases, the grants and cessions were to the 
United States, for the interest of the whole Union ; and the 
grants from individual States, contain express limitations and 
conditions, binding up the whole property to the common use 
of all the States forever. Yet, of late years, an idea has been 
suggested, indeed seriously advanced, that these lands, of 
right, belong to the States respectively, in which they hap- 
pen to lie. This doctrine, sir, which, I perceive, strikes this 
assembly as being somewhat extravagant, is founded on an 
argument derived from the nature of State sovereignty. It 
has been openly espoused, by candidates for office, in some of 
the new States, and, indeed, has been announced in the Sen- 
ate. To the credit of the country, it should be stated, that up 
to the present moment these notions have not spread widely, 
and they will be dispersed, undoubtedly, by the power of gen- 
eral opinion, so soon as that opinion shall be awakened and 
expressed. But there is another tendency, more likely, per- 
haps, to run to injurious excess ; and that is, a constant effort 
to reduce the price of land to sums almost nominal, on the 
ground of facilitating settlement. The sound policy of the 
Government has been, uniformly, to keep the prices of the pub- 
lic lands low; so low, that every actual settler might easily 
obtain a farm ; but yet, not so low, as to tempt individual, 
capitalists to buv up large quantities, to hold for speculation 
The object has" been to meet, at all times, the whole actual 
demand, at a cheap rate; and this object has been obtained. 
And it is obviously of the greatest importance to keep the 
prices of the public lands from all influences, except the single 
one of supplying the whole actual demand, at a cheap rate. 



/ 



17 

The present minimum price is one dollar and a quarter per 
acre ; and millions of acres, much of it of an excellent quality, 
are now in the market at this rate. Yet, every year, there are 
propositions to reduce the prices ; and propositions to graduate 
the prices ; that is to say, to provide that all lands, having 
been offered for sale, for a certain length of time, at the es- 
tablished rate, if not then sold, shall be offered at a less rate ; 
and again reduced, if not sold, to one still less. I have my- 
self thought, that in some of the oldest districts, some mode 
might usefully be adopted of disposing of the remainder of the 
unsold hind-, "and closing the offices ; but a universal system 
of graduation, lowering prices at short intervals, and by large 
degrees, could have -no other effect than a general depression 
of °price in regard to the whole moss, and would evidently be 
o-reat mismanagement of the public property. The meeting, 
sir, will think it singular enough, that a reduction of prices 
of the public lands should have been demanded, on the ground 
that other impositions for revenue, such as the duty on tea 
and coffee, have been removed ; thus considering and treating 
the sums received for lands sold, as a tax, a burden, an im- 
position, and a great drain on the means and the industry 
of the new States. A man goes from New England to one 
of the Western States, buys a hundred acres of the best land 
in the world for one hundred and twenty-five dollars, pays his 
money, and receives an indisputable title ; and immediately, 
some one stands up in Congress to call this operation the lay- 
ing of a tax, the imposition of a burden, and the whole of 
these purchases and payments, taken together, are represented 
as an intolerable drain, on the money and the industry of the 
new States. I know not, sir, which deserves to pass for the 
original, and which for the copy ; but this reasoning is not un- 
like that, which maintains that the trading community ol the 
West will be exhausted and ruined, by the privilege of bor- 
rowing money of the Bank of the United States, at six per 
cent, interest ; this interest, being, as is said in the Veto Mes- 
sage, a burden upon their industry, and a drain ot their cur- 
rency, which no country can bear, without inconvenience 
and distress. . 

It was in a forced connexion with the reduction of duties 
of impost, that the subject of the public lands was referred to 
the Committee of Manufactures in the Senate, at the late ses- 
sion of Congress. This was a legislative movement, calculated 
3 



\ 



18 

to throw on Mr. Clay, who was taking a leading part on the 
subject of the Tariff, and the reduction of duties, a new and 
delicate responsibility. From this responsibility, however, Mr. 
Clay did not shrink. He took up the subject, and his report 
upon it, and his speech delivered afterwards, in defence of the 
Report, are, in my opinion, among the very ablest of the ef- 
forts which have distinguished his long public life. I desire 
to commend their perusal to every citizen of Massachusetts. 
They will show him the deep interest of all the States, his 
own among the rest, in the security and proper management 
and disposal of the public domain. Founded on the Report 
of the Committee, Mr. Clay introduced a Bill, providing for 
the distribution, among all the States, according to number^ 
of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, for five years ;. 
first making a deduction of a considerable per centage in favor 
of the new States ; the sums thus received by the States to be 
disposed of by themselves, in favor of Education, Internal Im- 
provement, or Colonization, as each State might choose for 
itself. This Bill passed the Senate. It was vigorously op- 
posed in the House of Representatives, by the main body of 
the friends of the Administration, and finally lost by a small 
majority. By the provisions of the Bill, Massachusetts would 
have received, as her dividend, one hundred and thirty-seven 
thousand dollars a year. 

I am free to confess, sir, that I had hoped to see some unob- 
jectionable way of disposing of this subject, with the observance 
of justice towards all the States, by the Government of the 
United States itself, without a distribution, through the inter- 
vention of the State Governments. Such way, however, I 
have not discovered. I therefore voted for the bill of the last 
session. 

Mr. President, — let me remind the meeting of the great ex- 
tent of this public property. 

Only twenty millions of acres have been, as yet, sold, from 
the commencement of the Government. One hundred and 
twenty millions, or about that quantity, is now cleared from 
the Indian title, all surveyed into townships, ranges, and sec- 
tions, and now in the market for sale. I think, sir. the whole 
surface of Massachusetts embraces about six millions of acres ; 
so that the United States have a body of land, now surveyed, 
and in market, equal to twenty States, each of the size of 
Massachusetts. But this is but a very small portion of the 



19 

whole domain ; much the greater part being yet unsurveyed. 
and much, too, subject to the original Indian title. The in- 
come to the revenue from the sales of land is estimated at 
three millions of dollars a year. The meeting will thus see, 
sir, how important a subject this is, and how highly it be- 
comes the country to guard this vast property against per- 
version, and bad management. 

Mr. President, — among the Bills which failed, at the last ses- 
sion, for want of the President's approval, was one, in which 
this State had a great pecuniary interest. It was the Bill for 
the payment of interest to the States, on the funds advanced by 
them during the war, the principal of which had been paid, 
or assumed," by the Government of the United States. Some 
sessions ago a Bill was introduced into the Senate, by my 
worthy colleague, and passed into a law, for paying a large 
part of the principal sum, advanced by Massachusetts, for 
militia expenses, for defence of the country : this has been 
paid. The residue of the claim is in the proper course of ex- 
amination, and such parts of it as ought to be allowed will 
doubtless be paid hereafter, Yetos out of the way, be it always 
understood. In the late Bill it was proposed that interest 
should be paid to the States, on these advances, in cases where 
it had not been already paid. It passed both Houses. I re- 
collect no opposition to it in the Senate, nor do I remember to 
have heard of anv considerable objection in the House of Rep- 
resentatives. The argument for it lay in its own obvious jus- 
tice ; a justice too apparent, as it seems to me, to be denied by 
any one. I left Congress, sir. a day or two before its ad- 
journment, and meeting some friends, in this village, on my 
way home, we exchanged congratulations on this additional 
act of justice, thus rendered to Massachusetts, as well as 
other States. But I had hardly reached Ffammgham, before 
1 learned that our congratulations were premature. The Pre- 
sident's signature had been refused, and the Bill was not a 
law ! The only reaso» which I have ever heard for this tetu- 
sal, is, that Congress had not been in the practice of allowing 
interest on claims. This was not true, as a universal rule; 
but if it were, might not Oongress be. trusted with the main- 
tenance of its own rules ! Wight it not make exceptions to 
them, for good cause ? No doubt, in regard to old and long 
neglected claims, it has been attstomary not to allow interest ; 
but the Massachusetts claim was not oi tins character, nor the 






20 

claims of other States. None of them had remained unpaid, 
for want of presentment. The Executive and Legislature of 
this Commonwealth had never omitted to press her demand for 
justice, and her Delegates in Congress have endeavored to 
discharge their duty by supporting that demand. It has been 
already decided, in repeated insiauces. as well in regard to 
States as to individuals, that when money has been actually 
borroiced. for objects for which the General Government ought 
to provide, interest paid on such borrowed money, shall be re- 
funded by the United States. >«ow. sir. would it not be a 
distinction without a difference to allow interest in such a case. 
and yet refuse it in another, in which the State had not bor- 
rowed the money, and paid interest for it. but had raised it by 
taxation, or. as I believe was the case with Massachusetts, by 
the sale of valuable stocks, bearing interest .- Is it not, appa- 
rent- that in her case, as clearly as in that of a borrowing' 
State, she has actually lost the interest ? Can any man main- 
tain that, between these two :ases. there is any sound distinc- 
tion, in law. in equity, or in morals 1- The refusal to sign this 
bill has deprived Massachusetts and Maine of a very large sum 
of money, justly due to them. It is now fifteen or sixteen 
years since the money was advanced, and it was advanced for 
the most necessary and praiseworthy public purposes. The in- 
terest on the sum already refunded, and on that which may 
reasonably be expected to be hereafter refunded, is not less 
tfaanjEve hundred thousand dollars. But for the President's 
refusal, in this unusual mode, to give his approbation to a bill 
which had passed Congress almost unanimously, these two 
States would already have been in the receipt of a very con- 
siderable portion of ibis money : and made sure of the residue 
in due season. 

Mr. President. — I do not desire to raise mere pecuniary inter- 
ests to an undue importance, in political matters. I admit, 
ue principles and objects of paramount obligation and 
importance. I would not oppose the President, merely because 
he has refused to the State what I thought her entitled to. in 
a matter of money, provided he had made known his reasons. 
and ihey had appeared to be such as mi^ht fairly influence an 
intelligent and honest mind. But where a State has so direct 
heavy an interest, where the justice of the case : - n 
plain, that men agree in it who asrree in hardly any thing else, 
where her claim has passed Congress, without considerable 



21 

opposition in cither House, a refusal to approve the hill with- 
out giving the slightest reason, — the taking advantage of the 
rising of Congress to give it a silent go-by, is an act that may 
well awaken theattention of the People in the States conccriK d. 
It is an act, calling for close examination. It is an act, which 
calls loudly for justification by its author. And now, sir, I 
will close what 1 have to say on this particular subject by sta- 
ting, that on the 22d of March, 1832, the President did actual- 
ly approve aud sign a bill, in favor of South-Carolina, by 
which it was enacted that her claim for interest upon money 
actually expended by her for military stores, during the late 
war, should be settled and paid ; the money so expended hav- 
ing been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she 
was receiving interest. Now this, sir, was precisely the case 
of Massachusetts. 

Mr. President, — I now approach an inquiry of a far more 
deep and affecting interest. Are the principles and measures 
of the Administration dangerous to the Constitution, and to 
the Union of the States ? Sir, I believe them to be so ; and 
I shall state the grounds of that belief. 

In the first place, any Administration is dangerous fo the 
Constitution, and to the Union of the States, which denies the 
essential powers of the Constitution, and thus strips it of the 
capacity to do the good intended by it. 

The principles embraced by the Administration, and ex- 
pressed in the Veto Message, are evidently hostile to the whole 
system of protection, by duties of impost, on constitutional 
grounds. Here, then, is one great power struck at once out 
of the Constitution : and one great end of its adoption defeated. 
And while this power is thus struck out of the Constitution, it 
is clear that it exists no where else : since the Constitution ex- 
pressly takes it away from all the States. 

The Veto Message denies the constitutional power of creating 
or continuing such an institution a* our whole experience has 
approved, for maintaining a sound, uniform, national current 
and for the safe collection of revenue. Here is another 
power. long used, but now lopped off. And this power, too, 
thus lopped off from the Constitution, is evidently not within 
the power o\ any of the individual States - te ran 

maintain a national currency : no State Institution can render 
to the revenue the services performed by a National Institu- 
tion. 



It" ~:T : ~: r-3.: 




->- 



----- - . : ■ . ■■ ' ■>. - ■:.:>.,'. 

iBBC jfOK^ 2ttd t-M »iL JBB 




24 

cessity ; but it has now become co-extensive with the Execu- 
tive will, calling for no necessity, requiring no exigency, for 
its exercise ; but to be exercised at all times, without control, 
without question, without responsibility. When the question 
of the President's power of removal was debated in the first 
Congress, those who argued for it, limited it to extreme cases. 
Cases, they said, might arise, in which it would be absolutely 
necessary to remove an officer, before the Senate could be as- 
sembled. An officer might become insane ; he might abscond ; 
and from these, and other supposable cases, it was said; the 
public service might materially suffer, if the President could 
not remove the incumbent. Aud it was further said, that 
there was little or no danger of the power's being abused for 
party or personal objects. No President, it was thought, would 
ever commit such an outrage on public opinion. Mr. Madi- 
son, who thought the power ought to exist, and to be exercised 
in cases of high necessity, declared, nevertheless, that if a Pre- 
sident should exercise the power when not called for, by any 
public exigency, and merely for personal objects, he tcould de- 
serve to be impeached. By a very small majority, I think 
in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President, Con- 
gress decided in favor of the existing power, upon the grounds 
which, I have mentioned ; granting the power, in a case of 
clear and absolute necessity, and denying its existence every 
where else. 

Mr. President, — we should recollect that this question was 
discussed, and thus decided, when Washington was in the 
Executive Chair. Men knew, that, in his hands, the power 
would not be abused ; nor did they conceive it possible that 
any of his successors could so far depart from his great and 
bright example, as, by abuse of the power, and by carrying 
that abuse to its utmost extent, to change the essential char- 
acter of the Executive from that of an impartial guardian and 
executor of the laws, into that of the chief dispenser of party 
rewards. Three or four instances of removal occurred, in the 
first twelve years of the Government. At the commencement 
of Mr. Jefferson's administration, he made several others, not 
without producing much dissatisfaction ; so much so, that he 
thought it expedient to give reasons to the people, in a pub- 
lic paper, for even the limited extent to which he had exercised 
the power. He placed his justification on particular circum- 
stances, and peculiar grounds; which, whether substantial or 



25 

not, showed, at least, that he did not regard the power of re- 
moval as an ordinary power, still less as a mere arbitrary one, 
to be used as he pleased, for whatever ends he pleased, and 
without responsibility. As far as I remember, sir, after the 
early part of Mr. Jefferson's administration, hardly an instance 
occurred for near thirty years. If there were any instances, 
they were few. But at the commencement of the present 
Administration the precedent of these previous cases was seized 
on, and a system, a regular plan of government, a well-con- 
sidered scheme for the maintenance of party power, by the 
patronage of office, and this patronage to be created by gen- 
eral removal, was adopted, and has been carried into full op- 
eration. Indeed, before Gen. Jackson's inauguration, the party 
put the system into practice. In the last session of Mr. 
Adams's administration, the friends of Gen. Jackson consti- 
tuted a majority in the Senate ; and nominations, made by 
him to fill vacancies, which had occurred in the ordinary way, 
were postpoi>ed, by this majority, beyond the third of March, 
for the purpose, openly avowed, of giving the nominations 
to Gen. Jackson. A nomination for a Judge of the Supreme 
Court, and many others of less magnitude, were thus dis- 
posed of. 

And what did we witness, sir, when the Administration 
actually commenced, in the full exercise of its authority ? 
One universal sweep, one undistinguishing blow, levelled 
against all, who were not of the successful party. No worth, 
public or private, no service, civil or military, was of power to 
resist the relentless greediness of proscription. Soldiers of the 
late war, soldiers of the Revolutionary war, the very contem- 
poraries of the liberties of the country, all lost their situations. 
No office was too high, and none too low ; for office was the 
spoil. — a nd all the spoils, it wis said, belonged to the victors ! 
If a man, holding an office, necessary for his daily support, 
had presented himself covered with the scars of wounds re- 
ceived in every battle, from Bunker Hill to York Town, these 
would not have protected him against the reckless rapacity of 
proscription. Nay, sir, if Warren himself had been among 
the living, and bad possessed any office under Government, 
higji or low, he would not iiavc been suffered to hold it a 
single hour, unless he could show that he had strictly com- 
plied with the party statutes, and had put a well-marked party 
collar round his own neck. Look, sir, to the case of the late 
4 



26 

•ble Ma;:: Xklyiij He was a spirit of 1776 

of the very firs: to venture in the cause of 1 Bf 

of the Tea party : one of tfa expose himself to 

And his w: rant with 

its beginning. Always ardent in the cause of Liberty, always 
a zealous friend to his coun:. v.uh the party 

which he supposed cherishe. . ubliean Spirit 

most fervently. al\~ and respectable in private 

be seemed armed against tserahte petty tyranny of 

party, as far as man could be. But he felt its blow, and he 
fell. He held an office in the Custom :id had holden 

it for -. h : ig coarse of ; 

he country which he loved, and for whose 
liberties, in the vigor of hi ...nhood. he had thrust 

himself into the very jaws of its enem ras no mis- 

take in the mauer. H k lis standing evolu- 

tional e all well known; but they were known 

to no purpose i not one feather against party 

pretensions. It cost no pains to remove him : it cc- 
punction to wring- his ageo" heart with this retribution from 

.1. and hi 

was nominated to 

S ate was told who it was that had been 

removed to m: for tha: nomination, members were 

struck with horror. nceived the Administra- 

tion to be cap- hey said, what 

can r T1 . - ed : — ire cannot recall him: 

pon the nomination before us ! Sir. ycu 
and I thought otherwise : and I rejoice that we t5d think 
other :ur duty I 

to a vaca: :eated. We thought it our duty to ~ 

this proscription when, and where, and as. we constitutionally 
could. "We besought th Sena to go with us. and to take a 
stand before the country on this great question. We invoked 
them to try the deliberate sense of the people : to trust them- 
selves before the tribunal of public opinion : to resist at first, to 
resist at last, to resist ah introduction of this unsocial, 

this mischievous, this dangerous this belligerent principle; into 
I ::nrnent. 
.dent. — as far as I know, there is no civilized country 
on earth, in which, on a change of rulers, there is such an 
inquisition for spoil, as we have witnessed in this free Re- 




public. The Inaugural Address of 1S29 spoke of a searching 
operation of Government. The most searching operation, 
sir. of the present Administration has been its search for office 
and place. "Whenever, sir. did any English Minister, whig 
or tory. take such an inquest? When did he ever go down 
to low-water mark ; to make an ousting of tide-waiters ? 
When did he ever take away the daily bread of weighers 
and gaugers. and measurers? Or when did he go into the 
villages, to disturb the little poet-offices, the mail contracts, and 
any thing else,, in the remotest degree connected with Govern- 
ment - Sir. a British Minister, who should do this, and should 
afterwards show his head in a British House of Commons, 
would !»e received by an universal 1. 

I have little to say. of the selections made to fill vacancies, 
thus created. It is true, however, and it is a natural conse- 
quence of the system which has been acted on. that within the 
last three years, more nominations have been rejected, on the 
ground of unfitness, than in. all the preceding forty years of 
the Government. And these nominations, you know. sir. 
could not have been rejected, but by votes of the President's 
own friends. The ca- - too strong to be resisted. 

Even party attachment could not stand them. In some, not 
a third of the Senate, in others not ten votes, and in others 
not a single vote, could be obtained ; and this, for no partic- 
•ular reason known only to the Senate ; but on general grounds 
of the want of character and qualifications ; on grounds, known 
to every body else, as well as to the Senate. All this. sir. is 
perfectly natural and consistent. The same party selfiV 
which drives good men out of office will push bad men in. 
Political proscription leads necessarily to the filling of offices 
with incompetent persons, and to a consequent mal-execution 
of official duties. In my opinion, sir. it will effectually change 
the character of our Government, this acting upon the avowed 
principle of claiming office by right of conquest, unless the 
public shall rebuke and restrain it. It e". ibore 

country: it forgets the comra.n weal, in the pursuit of per- 
sonal emolument : it tends to form, it does form, we see that 
it has formed, political combinations, held together by no com- 
mon principles or opinioD? i - members, either upon 
the powers of the Government, or the true policy of the coun- 
ut held together simply as an association, under the 
charm of a popular head, seeking, to maintain possession of 



23 



the Government by a vigorous exercise of its patronage ; 
and for this purpose agitating, and alarming, and distressing 
social life by the exercise of a tyrannical party proscription. 
Sir, if this course of things cannot be checked, good men will 
grow tired of the exercise of political privileges. They will 
have nothing to do with popular elections. They will see 
that such elections are but a mere selfish contest for office ; 
and they will abandon the Government to the scramble of the 
bold, the daring, and the desperate. 

It seems. 3Ir. President, to J>e a peculiar and singular char- 
acteristic of the present Administration, that it came into power 
on a cry against abuses, which did not exist, and then, as 
soon as it was in. as if in mockery of the perception and in- 
telligence of the People, it created those very abuses, and 
carried them to a great length. Thus the Chief Magistrate 
himself, before he came into the chair, in a formal public 
paper, denounced the practice of appointing members of Con- 
gress to office. He said, that if that practice continued, cor- 
ruption would become the order of the day; and as if to 
fasten, and nail down his own consistency to that point, ho 
declared that it was "due to himself to practise what he 
recommended to others" Yet, sir, as soon as he was in 
power, these fastenings gave way, the" nails all flew, and the 
promised consistency remains, a striking proof of the manner 
in which political assurances are sometimes fulfilled. For,- 
sir, he has already appointed more members of Congress to 
office than any of his predecessors, in the longest period of 
administration. Before his time, there was no reason to com- 
plain of these appointments. They had not been numerous, 
under any Administration. Under this, they have been nu- 
merous, and some of them such as may well justify complaint. 

Another striking instance of the exhibition of the same char- 
acteristics, may be found in the sentiments of the Inaugural 
Address, and in the subsequent practice, on the subject of in- 
terfering with the freedom of elections. The Inaugural 
Address declares, that it is necessary to reform abuses which 
have brought the patronage of the Government into con- 
flict with the freedom of elections. And what has been the 
subsequent practice? Look to the newspapers; — look to the 
published letters of officers of the Government, advising, ex- 
horting, soliciting, friends and partizans to greater exertions, 
in the cnu=e of the Party; — vee all done, every where, which 



29 

patronage and power can do, to affect not only elections in the 
General Government, but also in ever}' State Government — 
and then say, how well this promise of reforming abuses has 
been kept. At what former period, under what former Admin- 
istration, did public officers of the United States thus interfere 
in electious ? Certainly, sir. never. In this respect, then, as 
well as in others, that which was not true, as a charge against 
previous Administrations, would have been true, if it had as- 
sumed the form of a prophecy, respecting the acts of the present. 

But there is another attempt to srrasp, and to wield, a power 
over public opinion, of a still more daring character, and far 
more dangerous effects. 

In all popular governments, a FREE PRESS is the most 
important of all agents and instruments. It not only ex- 
presses public opinion, but. to a very great degree, it contri- 
butes to form that opinion. It is an engiue. for good or for 
evil, as it may be directed ; but an engine, of which nothing 
can resist the force. The conductors of the press, in popular 
governments, occupy a place, in the social and political s\ - 
of the very highest consequence. They wear the character 
of public instructers. To matters of intelligence, they add 
matters of opinion. Their daily labors bear directly on the 
intelligence, the morals, the taste] and the public spirit of the 
country. Not only are they journalists, recording political 
occurrences, but they discuss principles, they comment on 
measures, they canvass characters : they hold a power over 
the reputation, the feelings, the happiness of individuals. 
The public ear is always open to their addresses, the public 
sympathy easily made responsite to their sentiments. It is, 
indeed, sir. a distinction of high honor, that theirs is the only 
profession expressly protected am! 'juarded by constitutional 
enactments. Their employment high, in it- jjeneral 

consequences, it i< so intimately connected with the public 
happiness, that its security is projrided for by the fundamental 
law. While it acts in a manner worthy of this distinction, 
the press i- a fountain of light, and a source of gladd 
warmth. It instructs the public mind, and animates the 
spirit of patriotism. It- loud voice supp - - ery thing, 
which would raise itself against the public liberty: and its 
blasting rebuke causes incipient despotism to perish in the bud. 

But remember, sir. that these are the attributes of a Free 
Press, only. And i= t pre=? that i- purchased or pensioned. 



30 

more free than a press that is fettered ? Can the People look 
for truths to partial sources, whether rendered partial through 
fear, or through favor '? Why shall not a manacled press be 
trusted with the maintenance and defence of popular rights ? 
Because it is supposed to be under the influence of a power, 
which may prove greater than the love of truth. Such a press 
may screen abuses in Government, or be silent. It may fear 
to speak. And ma} r it not fear to speak, too, when its con- 
ductors, if tbey speak in any but one way, may lose their 
means of livelihood ? Is dependence on Government for bread 
no temptation to screen its abuses? Will the Press always 
speak the truth, though the truth, if spoken, may be the means 
of silencing it for the future ? Is the truth in no danger, is 
the watchman under no temptation, when he can neither pro- 
claim the approach of national evils, nor seem to descry them, 
without the loss of his place 1 

Mr. President, — an open attempt to secure the aid and friend- 
ship of the public press, by bestowing the emoluments of office 
on its active conductors, seems to me, of every thing we have 
witnessed, to be the most reprehensible. It degrades both the 
Government and the press. As far as its natural effect extends, 
it turns the palladium of liberty into an engine of party. It 
brings the agency, activity, energy and patronage of Govern- 
ment, all to bear, with united force, on the means of general 
intelligence, and on the adoption or rejection of political opin- 
ions. It so completely perverts the true object of Govern- 
ment, it so entirely revolutionizes our whole system, that the 
chief business of those in power is directed rather to the propa- 
gation of opinions, favorable to themselves, than to the execu- 
tion of the laws. This propagation of opinions, through the 
press, becomes the main administrative duty. Some lifty or 
sixty editors of leading journals have been appointed to office 
by the present Executive. A stand has been made against this 
proceeding, in the Senate, with partial success; but by means 
of appointments, which do not come before the Senate, or other 
means, the number has been carried to the extent I have men- 
tioned. Certainly, sir, the editors of the public journals are 
not. to be disfranchised. Certainly, they are fair candidates 
either for popular elections, or a just participation in office. 
Certainly, they reckon, in their number, some of the first ge- 
niuses, the best scholars, and the most honest and well princi- 
pled men, in the country. But the complaint is against the 



31 

system, against the practice, against the undisguised attempt 
to secure the favor of the press, by means addressed to its pe- 
cuniary interest. And these means, too, drawn from the pub- 
lic treasury ; being no other than the appointed compensations 
for the performance of official duties. Sir, the press itself 
should resent this. Its own character for purity and indepen- 
dence is at stake. It. should resist a connexion, rendering it 
obnoxious to so many imputations. It should point to its 
honorable denomination, in our Constitutions of Government, 
and it should maintain the character there ascribed to it, of a 
FREE PRESS. 

There can, sir, be no objection to the appointment of an 
Editor to office, if he is the fittest man. There can be no ob- 
jection to considering the services, which, in that, or any other 
capacity, he may have rendered his country. He may have 
done much to maintain her rights against foreign aggression, 
and her character against insult. He may have honored, as 
well as defended her ; and may, therefore, be justly regarded 
and selected, in the choice of faithful public agents. But the 
ground of complaint is, that the aiding, by the press, of the 
election of an individual, is rewarded, by that same indi- 
vidual, with the gift of monied offices. Men are turned out 
of office, and others put in, and receive salaries from the public 
treasury, on the ground, cither openly avowed, or falsely deni- 
ed, that they had rendered service in the election of the very 
individual, who makes this removal, and makes this appoint- 
ment. Every man, sir, must see that this is a vital stab at 
the purity of the press. And it is not only attempting the 
independence of the press, by addressing sinister motives, but 
is furnishing the means of exciting these motives from the 
public treasury. It extends the Executive power over the press, 
in a most daring manner. It operates to give a direction to 
opinion, not favorable to the Government, in thi ite, 

not favorable to the Constitution and laws, not favorable to the 
Legislature, but favorable to the Executive alone. The con- 
sequence often is, just what might be looked for, that the por- 
tion of the press, thus made fast to the Executive interest, de- 
nounces Congress, denounces the Judiciary, complains ol the 
laws, and quarrels with the Constitution. This exercise of ll 
right of appointment, to this end, is an augmentation, anil avast 
one, of the Executive power, singly and alone. It uses that power, 
strongly against all other branches of the Government, and it 



32 

uses it strongly, too, for any struggle which it may be called on 
to make with general public opinion. Mr. President, I will quit 
this topic. There is much in it, in my judgment, affecting, 
not only the purity and independence of the press, but also the 
character and honor, the peace and security of the Government. 
I leave it, in all its bearings, to the consideration of the people. 
Mr. President, — among the novelties introduced into the 
Government, by the present Administration, is the frequent use 
of the President's negative, on acts of Congress. Under former 
Presidents, this power has been deemed an extraordinary one, 
to be exercised only in peculiar and marked cases. It was 
vested in the President, doubtless, as a guard against hasty 
or inconsiderate legislation, and against any act, inadvertently 
passed, which might seem to encroach on the just authority of 
other branches of the Government. 1 do not recollect that, 
by all General Jackson's predecessors, this power was exercised 
more than four or five times. Not having recurred to the 
Journals, I cannot, of course, be sure that I am numerically 
accurate in this particular ; but such is my belief. I recollect 
no instance in the lime of Mr. John Adams, Mr. Jefferson, or 
Mr. John Q,uincy Adams. The only cases which occur to 
"me are, two in General Washington's administration, two in 
Mr. Madison's, and one in Mr. Munroe's. There may be some 
others ; but we all know that it is a power which has been 

. very sparingly and reluctantly used, from the beginning of 
the Government. The cases, sir, to which 1 have now re- 
ferred, were cases, in which the President, returned the Bill 
with objections. The silent Veto is, I believe, the exclusive 
adoption of the present Administration. I think that some 
years ago, a bill, by inadvertence or accident, failed to receive 
the President's signature, and so did not become a law. But 
I am not aware of any instance, before the present Adminis- 
tration, in which the President has, by design, omitted to sign 
a bill, and yet has not returned it to Congress. But since the 
present Administration came into power, the Veto, in both 
kinds, has been repeatedly applied. In the case of the Mays- 
ville Road, the Montgomery Road, and the Bank, we have 
had the Veto, with reasons. In an internal improvement 

• bill of a former session, in a similar bill at the late session, 
and in the State interest bill, we have had the silent. Veto ; 
or refusal without reasons. 

Now, sir, it is to be considered, that the President has the 



33 

power of recommending measures to Congress. Through his 
friends, he may and does oppose, also, any legislative move- 
ment, which he does not approve. If, in addition to this, he 
may exercise a silent Veto, at his pleasure, on all the bills pre- 
sented to him during the last ten days of the session ; if he 
may refuse assent to them all, without being called upon to 
assign any reasons whatever, it will certainly be a great prac- 
tical augmentation of his power. Any one who looks at a 
volume of the Statutes, will see that a great portion of all the 
laws are actually passed within the last ten days of each ses- 
sion. If the President is at liberty to negative any, or all, of 
these laws, at pleasure, or rather, to refuse to render the bills 
laws, by approving them, and still may neglect to return them 
to Congress, for renewed action, he will hold a very important 
control over the legislation of this country. The day of ad- 
journment is usually fixed, some weeks in advance. This 
being fixed, a little activity and perseverance may easily, in 
most cases, and perhaps in all, where no alarm has been ex- 
cited, postpone important pending measures to a period within 
ten days of the close of the session : and this operation leaves 
all such measures at the pleasure of the President to sign the 
bills or not, without being obliged to state his reasons publicly. 

A silent Yeto, on the Bank Bill, would have been the in- 
evitable fate of that Bill, if its friends had not refused to fix 
on any term for adjournment before the President should have 
had the Bill so long as to be required, by constitutional pro- 
visions, to sign it, or to send it back with his reasons for not 
signing it. The two Houses did not agree, and would not 
agree, to fix a day for adjournment, until the Bill was sent to 
the President, and then care was taken to fix on such a day 
as should allow him the whole constitutional period. This 
seasonable presentment rescued the Bill from the power of the 
silent negative. 

This practical innovation on the mode of administering the 
Government, so much at variance with its general principles, 
and so capable of defeating the most useful acts, deserves public 
consideration. It- tendency is, to disturb the harmony, which 
ought always to exist between Congress and the Executive, 
and to turn that, which the Constitution intended only as an 
extraordinary remedy, for extraordinary cases, into a common 
means of making Executive discretion paramount to the dis- 
cretion of Congress, in the enactineut of laws. 



34 

Mr. President, — the Executive has not only used these 
unaccustomed means, to prevent the passage of laws, but 
it has also refused to enforce the execution of laws actually 
passed. An eminent instance of this, is found in the course 
adopted relative to the Indian Intercourse Law of 1802. 
Upon being applied to, in behalf of the Missionaries, to ex- 
ecute that law, for their relief and protection, the President 
replied, that the State of Georgia having extended her laios 
over the Indian territory, the laios of Congress had thereby 
been superseded. This is the substance of his answer, as 
communicated through the Secretary of War. He holds, then, 
that the law of the State is paramount to the law of Con- 
gress. The Supreme Court has adjudged this act of Georgia 
to be void, as being repugnant to a constitutional law of the 
United States. But the President pays no more regard to this 
decision, than to the act of Congress itself. The Mission- 
aries remain in prison, held there by a condemnation, under 
a law of a State, which the Supreme Judicial Tribunal has 
pronounced to be null and void. The Supreme Court have 
decided that the act of Congress is constitutional, that it is 
a binding statute, that it has the same force as other laws, and 
is as much entitled to be obeyed and executed as other laws. 
The President, on the contrary, declares that the law of 
Congress has been superseded, by the law of the State, and 
therefore he will not carry its provisions into effect. Now we 
know, sir, that the Constitution of the United States declares, 
that that Constitution, and, all acts of Congress passed in 
pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law of the land, 
any thing in any State law to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing. This would seem to be a plain case, then, in which the 
law should be executed. It has been solemnly decided to be 
in actual force, by the highest judicial authority ; its execu- 
tion is demanded for the relief of free citizens, now suffering 
the pains of unjust and unlawful imprisonment ; yet the Pre- 
dent refuses to execute it. 

In the case of the Chicago Road, some sessions ago, the 
President approved the Bill, but accompanied his approval by 
a Message, saying how far he deemed it a propter law, and 
how far, therefore, it ought to be carried into execution. 

In the case of the Harbor Bill of the late session, being ap- 
plied to, by a member of Congress for directions for carrying 
parts of the law into effeet, ha declined giving them, and 



33 

made a distinction between such purt.\ of the law as he 
shoidd cause to be executed, and such as he should not ; 
and his right to make this distinction has heen openly main- 
tained, by those who habitually defend his measures. Indeed, 
sir, these, and other instances of liberties taken with plain 
statute laws, flow, naturally, from the principles expressly 
avowed by the President, under his own hand. In that im- 
portant document, sir, upon which it seems to behis fate to 
stand, or to fall, before the American People, the Veto Mes- 
sage, he holds the following language. " Each public officer, 
who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears 
that he will support it as he understands it, and not 
as it is understood by others.' 1 Mr. President, the gene- 
ral adoption of the sentiments, expressed in this sentence, 
would dissolve our Government. It would raise every man's 
private opinions into a standard for his own conduct ; and 
there certainly is, there can be, no government, where every 
man is to judge, for himself, of his own rights, and his own 
obligations. Where every one is his own arbiter, force, and 
not law, is the governing power. He who may judge for him- 
self, and decide for himself, must execute his own decisions ; 
and this is the law of force. I confess, sir, it strikes me with 
astonishment, that so wild, so disorganizing a sentiment should 
be uttered by a President of the United States. 1 should think 
it must have escaped from its author, through want of reflec- 
tion, or from the habit of little reflection, on such subjects, if 
I could suppose it possible, that, on a question exciting so 
much public attention, and of so much national importance, 
any such extraordinary doctrine could f nd its way through 
inadvertence, into a formal and solemn public act. Standing 
as it does, it affirms a proposition which would effectually re- 
peal all Constitutional and all legal obligations. The Consti- 
tution declares, that every public officer, in the State Govern- 
ment, as well as in the General Government, shall take an 
oath to support the Constitution of the United States. This 
is all. Would it not have cast an air of ridicule on the whole 
provision, if the Constitution had gone on to add the words, 
" as he understands it ? ' : What could come nearer to a sol- 
emn farce, than to bind a man, by oath, and ?iill leave him 
to be his own interpreter of his own obligation ? Sir, those 
who arc to execute the laws have no more a license to construe 
them, for themselves, than (hose whose only duty is to obey 



36 

them. Public officers are bound to support the Constitution ; 
private citizens are bound to obey it ; and there is no more in- 
dulgence, granted to the public officer, to support the Constitu- 
tion only as he understands it, than to a private citizen to 
obey it only as he understands it ; and what is true of the 
Constitution, in this respect, is equally true of any law. Laws 
are to be executed, and to be obeyed, not as individuals may 
interpret them, but according to public, authoritative interpreta- 
tion and adjudication. The sentiment of the message would 
abrogate the obligation of the whole criminal code. If every 
man is to judge of the Constitution and the laws for himself, 
if he is to obey, and support them, only as he may say he 
understands them, a revolution, I think, would take place in 
the administration of justice ; and discussions about the law 
of treason, murder and arson, should be addressed, not to the 
judicial bench, but to those who might stand charged with 
such offences. The object of discussion should be, if we run 
out this notion to its natural extent, to convince the culprit 
himself how he ought to understand the law. 

Mr. President, — how is it possible, that a sentiment so wild, 
and so dangerous, so encouraging to all who feel a desire to 
oppose the laws, and to impair the Constitution, should have 
been uttered by the President of the United States, at this 
eventful and critical moment 1 Are we not threatened with 
dissolution of the Union 1 Are we not told that the laws of 
the Government shall be openly and directly resisted ? Is not 
the whole Country looking, with the utmost anxiety, to what 
may be the result of these threatened courses 1 And, at this 
very moment, so full of peril to the State, the Chief Magistrate 
puts forth opinions and sentiments as truly subversive of all 
Government, as absolutely in conflict with the authority of the 
Constitution, as the wildest theories of Nullification. Mr. Pre- 
sident, I have very little regard for the law, or the logic, of 
Nullification. But there is not an individual in its ranks, ca- 
pable of putting two ideas together, who, if you will grant him 
the principles of the Veto Message, cannot defend all that 
Nullification has ever threatened. To make this assertion 
good, sir, let us see how the case stands. The Legislature of 
South-Carolina, it is said, will nullify the late Revenue, or 
Tariff law, because, they say, it is not warranted by the Con- 
stitution of the United States, as they understand the Con- 
stitution. They, as well as the President of the United 



37 

States, have sworn to support the Constitution. Both he and 
they have taken the same oath, in the same words. 

Now, sir, since he claims the right to interpret the Consti- 
tution as he pleases, how can he deny the same right to them'} 
Is his oath less stringent than theirs? Has he a prerogative 
of dispensation, which they do not possess? How can he 
answer them, when they tell him, that the Revenue laws arc 
unconstitutional, as they understand the Constitution, and 
that, therefore, they will nullify them I WilMic reply to them, 
according to the doctrines of his annual Message in 1830, 
that precedent has settled the question, if it was ever doubtful 1 
They will answer him in his own words, in the Veto Mes- 
sage, that in such a case precedent is not binding. Will he 
say to them, that the Revenue law is a law of Congress, which 
must be executed, until it shall be declared void ? They 
will answer him, that, in other cases, he has himself refused 
to execute laws of Congress which had not been declared 
void, but which had been, on the contrary, declared valid. 
Will he urge the force of judicial decision ? They will an- 
swer, that he himself does not admit the binding obligations 
of such decisions. Sir, the President of the United States is 
of opinion, that an individual, called on to execute a law, 
may, himself, judge of its constitutional validity. Has Nulli- 
ification any thing more revolutionary than that ? The Presi- 
dent is of opinion that judicial interpretations of the Constitution 
and the laws, do not bind the consciences, and ought not to 
bind the conduct, of men. Has Nullification any thing more 
disorganizing than that ? The President is of opinion, that, 
every officer is bound to support the Constitution only accord- 
ing to what ought to be, in his private opinion, its construction. 
Has Nullification, in its widest night, ever reached to an ex- 
travagance like that? No, sir, never. The doctrine of \ul 
lification, in my judgment a most false, dangerous, ami revo- 
lutionary doctrine, is this ; that the State, or a State, may 
declare the extent of the obligations which its citizens are un- 
der to the United States ; in other words, that a State, by 
State laws, and State judicatures, may conclusively construe 
the Constitution, for its own citizens. But that every indi\ id 
ual may construe it for himself, is a refinement on the theory 
of resistance to constitutional power, a sublimation of the right 
of be ; ig disloyal to the Union, a lice, charter for the elevation 
of private opinion above the authority of the fundamental law 



33 

of the State, Much as was never presented to the public view, 
and the public astonishment, even by Nullification itself. — 
Its first appearance is in the Veto Message. Melancholy, 
lamentable, indeed, sir, is our condition, when at a moment 
of serious danger and wide-spread alarm, such sentiments are 
found to proceed from the Chief Magistrate of the Govern- 
ment. Sir, I cannot feel that the Constitution is safe in such 
hands. 1 cannot feel that the present administration is its fit 
and proper guardian. 

But let me ask, sir, what evidence there is, that the Presi- 
dent is himself opposed to the doctrines of Nullification ? I 
do not say to the political party, which now pushes these 
doctrines, but to the doctrines themselves. Has he any where 
rebuked them ? Has he any where discouraged them ? Has 
his influence been exerted to inspire respect for the Constitu- 
tion, and to produce obedience to the laws? Has he followed 
the bright example of his predecessors, has he held fast by the 
institutions of the Country, has he summoned the good and 
the wise around him, has he admonished the Country that 
the Union is in danger, and called on all the patriotic to come 
out in its support? Alas ! Sir, we have seen nothing, no- 
thing, of all this. 

Mr. President, — I shall not discuss the doctrine of Nullifica- 
tion. I am sure it can have no friends here. Gloss it and 
disguise it as we may, it is a pretence incompatible with the 
authority of the Constitution. If direct separation be not 
its only mode of operation, separation is, nevertheless, its di- 
rect consequence. That a State may nullify a law of the 
Union, and still remain in the Union ; that she may have 
Senators and Representatives in the Government, and yet be 
at liberty to disobey and resist that Government ; that she 
may partake in the common councils, and yet not be bound 
by their results ; that she may control a law of Congress, so 
that it shall be one thing, with her, while it is another thing 
with the rest of the States ; all these propositions seem to be 
so absolutely at war with common sense and reason, that I 
do not understand how any intelligent person can yield the 
slightest assent to them. Nullification, it is in vain to attempt 
to conceal it, is disssolution ; it is dismemberment ; it is the 
breaking up of the Union. If it shall practically succeed, in 
any one State, from that moment there are twenty-four States 
in the Union no longer. Now, sir, I think it exceedingly proba- 



39 

ble that the President may come to an open rupture with that 
portion of his original party, which now constitutes what is 
called the Nullification party. I think it likely he will oppose 
the proceedings of that party, if they shall adopt measures, 
coming directly in conllict with the laws of the United States. 
But how will he oppose ? What will be his course of rem- 
edy ? Sir, I wish to call the attention of the meeting, and of 
the people, earnestly to this question, how ivill the President 
attempt to put down Nullification, if he shall attempt it at 
all. 

Sir, for one, I protest in advance against such remedies as I 
have heard hinted. The administration itself keeps a pro- 
found silence, but its friends have spcken for it. We are 
told, sir, that the President will immediately employ the 
military force, and at once blockade Charleston! A mili- 
tary remedy, a remedy by direct belligerent operation, has 
been thus suggested, and nothing else has been suggested, as 
the intended means of preserving the Union. Sir, there is 
no little reason to think, that this suggestion is true. We can- 
not be altogether unmindful of the past ; and therefore we 
cannot be altogether unapprehensive for the future. For one, 
sir, I raise my voice beforehand, against the unauthorized 
employment of military power, and against superseding the 
authority of the laws, by an armed force, under pretence of 
putting down Nullification. The President has no authority 
to blockade Charleston ; the President has no authority to 
employ military force, till he stall be duly required so to do, 
by law, and by the civil authorities. His duty is, to cause 
the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil au- 
thority. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the 
military force of the country, if necessary, for their support 
and execution ; but to do all this in compliance only with 
law, and with decisions of the tribunals. If, by any ingenious 
devices, those who resist the laws escape from the reach of 
judicial authority, as it is now provided to be exercised, it is 
entirely competent to Congress to make such new provisions 
as the exigency of the case may demand. These provisions 
undoubtedly will be made. With a constitutional and effi- 
cient head of the Government, with an Administration really 
and truly in favor of the Constitution, the country can grapple 
with Nullification. By the force v( reason, by the progress of 
enlightened opinion, by the natural, geuuino patriotism of the 



40 

country,, and by the steady and well sustained operations of 
law, the progress of disorganization may be successfully 
checked, and the Union maintained. Let it be remembered 
that where Nullification is most powerful, it is not unopposed. 
Let it be remembered that they who would break up the Union 
by force, have to march toward that object through thick ranks 
of as brave and good men as the country can show ; men, 
strong in character, strong in intelligence, strong in the purity 
of their own motives, and ready, always ready, to sacrifice 
their fortunes and their lives to the preservation of the Con- 
stitutional Union of the States. If we can relieve the country 
from an administration, which denies to the Constitution those 
powers which are the breath of its life, if we can place the 
Government in the hands of its friends, if we can secure it 
against the dangers of irregular and unlawful and military 
force, if it can be under the lead of an administration, whose 
moderation, firmness, and wisdom shall inspire confidence and 
command respect, we may yet surmount the dangers, nu- 
merous and formidable as they are, which surround us. 

And, sir, I see little prospect of overcoming these dangers, 
without a change of men. After all that has passed, the re- 
election of the present Executive will give the national sanc- 
tion to sentiments, and to measures, which will effectually 
change the government ; which, in short, must destroy the 
government. If the President be re-elected, with concurrent 
and co-operating majorities in both Houses of Congress, I do 
not see, that in four years more, all the power, which is suf- 
fered to remain in the Government, will not be holden by the 
Executive hand. Nullification will proceed, or will be put 
down by a power as unconstitutional as itself. The revenues 
will be managed by a Treasury Bank. The use of the Veto 
will be considered as sanctioned by the public voice. The 
Senate, if not "cut down," will be bound down; and the 
President, commanding the Army and the Navy, and holding 
all places of trust to be party property, what will then be left, 
sir, for Constitutional reliance t 

Sir, we have been accustomed to venerate the Judiciary, 
and to repose hopes of safety on that branch of the Govern- 
ment. But let us not deceive ourselves. The Judicial power 
cannot stand, for a long time, against the Executive power. 
The Judges, it is true, hold their places by an independent 
tenure ; but they are mortal. That, which is the common 



41 

lot of humanity, must make it necessary to renew the benches 
of justice. And how will they be filled ? Doubtless, sir, they 
will be filled by incumbents, agreeing- with the President, in 
his constitutional opinions. If the Court is felt as an obstacle, 
doubtless the first opportunity, and every opportunity; will be 
embraced, to give it less and less the character of an obstacle. 
Sir, without pursuing these suggestions, I only say that the 
country must prepare itself for any change in the Judicial 
Department, such as it shall deliberately sanction, in other 
departments. 

But, sir, what is the prospect of change ? Is there any 
hope, that the national sentiment will recover its accustomed 
tone, and restore to the Government a just and efficient ad- 
ministration ? 

Sir, if there be something of doubt on this point, there is 
also something, perhaps much, of hope. The popularity of 
the present Chief Magistrate, springing from causes not con- 
nected with his administration of the Government, has been 
great. Public gratitude for military service has remained fast to 
him, in defiance of many things, in his civil administration, 
calculated to weaken its hold. At length, there are indications, 
not to be denied, of new sentiments, and new impressions. 
At length, a conviction of danger to important interests, and 
to the security of the Government, has made its lodgement, 
in the public mind. At length, public sentiment begins to 
have its free course, and to produce its just effects. I fully 
believe, sir, that a great majority of the nation desire a change 
in the administration ; and that it will be difficult for party 
organization, or party denunciation to suppress the effective 
utterance of that general wish. There are unhappy differ- 
ences, it is true, about the fit person to be successor to the 
present incumbent, in the Chief Magistracy. And it is pos- 
sible, that this disunion, may, in the end, defeat the will of 
the majority. But so far as we agree together, let us uct to- 
gether. Wherever our sentiments concur, let our hands co- 
operate. If we cannot, at present, agree, who should be 
President, we are at least agreed who ought not to be. I ful- 
ly believe, sir, that gratifying intelligence is already on the 
wing. While we are yet deliberating, in Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania is voting. This week, she elects her members 
to the next Congress. I doubt not, the result of that election 
will show an important change in public sentiment, in that 
6 



42 

State. I cannot doubt that the great States adjoining her, 
holding similar constitutional principles, and having similar 
interests, will feel the impulse of the same causes which affect 
her. The people of the United States, by a vast and count- 
less majority, are attached to the Constitution. If they shall be 
convinced that it is in danger, they will come to its rescue, 
and will save it. It cannot be destroyed, even now, if they 
will undertake its guardianship and protection. 

But suppose, sir, there was less hope than there is, would 
that consideration weaken the force of our obligations ? Are 
we at a post, which we are at liberty to abandon, when 
it becomes difficult to hold it ? May we fly at the approach of 
danger 7 Does our fidelity to the Constitution require no mere 
of us than to enjoy its blessings, to bask in the prosperity which 
it has shed around us, and our fathers, and are we at liberty 
to abandon it, in the hour of its peril, or to make for it but a 
faint and heartless struggle, for the want of encouragement, 
and the want of hope / Sir, if no State come to our succor, if 
every where else the contest should be given up, here let it be 
protracted, to the last moment. Here, where the first blood of 
the Revolution was shed, let the last effort for that which is the 
greatest blessing obtained by the Revolution, a free and united 
Government, be made. Sir, in our endeavors to maintain our 
existing forms of Government, n r e are acting not for ourselves 
alone, but for the great cause of Constitutional liberty all over 
the globe. We are trustees, holding a sacred treasure, in which 
all the lovers of freedom have a stake. Not only in Revolu- 
tionized France, where there are no longer subjects, where 
the monarch can no longer say, he is the State, not only in 
reformed England, where our principles, our institutions, our 
practice of free Government are now daily quoted and com- 
mended ; but in the depths of Germany, also, and among the 
desolated fields, and the still smoking ashes of Poland, prayers 
are uttered for the preservation of our Union and happiness. 
We are surrounded, sir, by a cloud of witnesses. The gaze 
of the sons of liberty, every where, is anxiously, intently, 
upon us. They may see us fall in the struggle for our Con- 
stitution and Government, but Heaven forbid that they should 
see us recreant. 

At least, sir, let the Star of Massachusetts be the last which 
shall be seen to fall from heaven, and to plunge into the utter 
darkness of disunion. Let her shrink baek t let her hold 



43 

others back, if she can ; at any rate, let her keep herself back, 
from this gulf, full, at once, of lire, and of blackness ; yes, sir, 
as far as human foresight can scan, or human imagination fath- 
om, full of the fire, and the blood, of civil war, and of the 
thick darkness of general political disgrace, ignominy, and 
ruin. Though the worst may happen that can happen, and 
though she may not be able to prevent the catastrophe, yet, 
let her maintain her own integrity, her own high honor, her 
own unwavering fidelity, so that with respect and decency, 
though with a broken and a bleeding heart, she may pay the 
last tribute to a glorious, departed, free Constitution. 



W 80 














••*" <v 




c° /- 



.* ... 



r <^ ••"• ^ 




























/ 







,# ^ 











A % c ° " • . <*s O^ O j$> c ° " " • ^ 

1*^ O* 




* -X 







"o V 




0° , 






•^.^ 



% G* *o 

o 




> V «l!!rCw% c 






'<&,<* * 

vP V 











A <. *~7T' ,G V *o, '•..* A 





* ^ '.' 

• . o .0 "*$> ■ , y • A^ 

L-- «> «.£ •isS^.*. ** ,** Sate: * & 

A **7VV* .G v ^> '» • » * A <v * ~7V« ,0 




* v . 




^0^ 



>* 




r oK 



v-tf 5 






•- 










****** '*j£8&- "^ 




v-cr 



"oK 



A ^ 

s 









'* :'«'• *-^ :*^: **-»** :' 











°*c 







v 




